Alienation in the Post Cold War Era
Chapter 15
Objectivity as a
Requirement for Love
(page 6)
[Click here to go back to page 5.]
Non-Judgmental Dialogue Versus the Sterile Debate
I distinguish between what is called a “debate” in our culture, and a real dialogue. A debate usually occurs between alienated people. In a debate psychological factors play a decisive role. Each person is attached to an ego with a set of ideas or ideology. Each person tries to crush or defeat the other person ideas and the ego that is attached to them. Normally the ideas or ideology reflects the class background of the person, and the ideas of the group that the person is attached to. Thus in a political debate, for example, when one group debates the other, nationalist ideas, class ideas, sexist ideas, or racist ideas dominate the debate. Such ideas are not the people’s own ideas derived independently, but the ideas of their group that provide the debaters a fragile and irrational emotional security. Therefore, there is no listening, and there is no emotional and mind openness that comes from real dialogue. When one speaker bring in information that contradicts or undermines the positions of the opponent, the opponent does not open his/her mind and really assess the information objectively. The opponent rather tries to figure out how to manipulate the data and show that the other speaker’s information is false.
The speakers can be a very impressive, articulate and powerful. But that does not change the manipulative nature of the debate. The fact that such speakers can impress a large audience only reflects the emotional and intellectual poverty of many people. Many people cannot be objective, and that permits the “impressive” speaker to appeal to their emotional insecurities. Such insecurities are exemplified by the fear to be different than the rest of “their” group. An attachment to the group’s ideas become critical if one wants to be accepted and approved. A breach from the group’s positions can result in a covert or overt punishment by the group. Thus people do not listen and learn much in a debate. This is true in regard to each speaker and part of the audience that supports him or her. Each person is attached to a way his/her group looks at things. When a person in our conformist society fully breaks from the group’s thinking and feeling, such a person is likely to be banished from the group.
Many times, of course, a debate is a cynical plot to gain power or control over people, and the speaker does not really believe or care about the ideas that he/she presents (in presidential debates for example). But there are many honest debates in which there are no conscious manipulations. We can say that what happens in a debate is somewhat similar to what takes place in a personal argument in our society. When a couple or friends fight all the time before they split, they discover that the ego of the other person — including his/her ideas and psychological routines — does not fit with their own ego. They do not feel secure with each other anymore, and they need to shop for a new “compatible” ego — an ego that makes them feel comfortable as it sits well with the security and conformity of their social situation and their social group. When this develops, every disagreement become a debate or an argument; nobody listens since everybody is driven by hostility that comes from “I do not really know if I feel safe with that person. I do not know if he/she can remain an intimate part of my life, my family, and my social group”. When this develops, a romantic lover or a close friend becomes a stranger, and all the emotional insecurities from the past and the present become the movers behind the scene during the arguments.
While the social circumstances and the specifics are quite different, there are nevertheless some basic similarities between debates and personal fights. When two political groups debate each other, each group possess a collective ego so to speak that has the ideas of their group; each group ego is attached to emotional securities that can be traced to the social and economic status of the group. The other group’s ideas are “wrong” because the other group’s ideas are hostile or in competition with what the first group’s ego possesses, and because such ideas threatens the feeling of security within the first group. Behind the psychological factors there are usually material interests. The naked material interests and greed behind the “collective” ego and security of one group are in competition with the other group interests and greed.
A debate is sterile because nobody really listens, learns or changes. In a genuine dialogue the speakers may be convinced for now of their ideas, but they are not attached to them. They can be objective about their ideas, thus they are capable to change them if the ideas do not correspond to the changes in reality. Most importantly, the speakers are not attached to an ego that emotionally controls their ideas or openness to change them. There are no fears of losing the status in the herd because in a dialogue the speaker is driven by deep convictions and not by the pressure of his/her social group. The speaker may try to convince the other, but he/she knows that the aliveness and objectivity of the other will penetrate him/her. Thus, each speaker knows that they will not be the same after the dialogue, even if they will not change their positions very much. The objectivity and ability of each other to be thoughtful and use reasoning in a genuine way affects the other and enriches his/hers understanding of the matter in dispute. Thus each one learns from the other and experiences certain growth. The bottom line is that when ideas are not attached to a sterile social ego, the ideas of the persons change (at least to some extent) and the persons grow from the dialogue.
While a dialogue stimulates emotional and intellectual growth, a debate is intellectually boring, and is emotionally sterile. In a debate between two scientists with big egos, for example, each scientist is attached to his/her theory because attachment the theory gives his/her prestige or power in the specific scientific community. In the case of such scientists the ego is attached to the beloved theory and the hours of research associated with it. The scientist will not let go of the ego, since the entire self-worth is attached to it. Such a scientist may try to manipulate the data to make it look good for his/her side even if the theory has holes; thus the debate between the sides is filled with anxiety, denunciations and anger — that it, it is emotionally barren.
But a dialogue has an healthy emotional component to it. If the people are not attached to the ideas, they do not care to be “defeated”; there is no hollow elation for the winners or the depression of defeated egos. Each one does not need to worry about how to arrange the arguments the best way to undermine the opponent, nor do they need to study anxiously the weakness in the opponent arguments. They can rely on spontaneity because the conviction in their ideas is not possessive. Each one trust the other; she/he knows that the other is not manipulative and thus she/he can be convinced if the other is right. In a genuine dialogue both could change their ideas at least partially, since each one is likely to bring information and a new method of thinking into the dialogue that enlightens the other.
[Click here to continue to page 7; click here to go back to page 1.]